The Democrats’ convention theme is always one of “optimism,” while painting the Republicans’ convention as dark and pessimistic. “Optimism” is normally defined as hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something. But, the Obama/Clinton brand of optimism is laden with additional baggage, to wit: hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something while contemporaneously covering up, hiding or utterly disregarding the facts. I suppose it can be labeled “blind optimism.” It’s the type of political campaign optimism that, in the wake of a terrorist attack, says “Move on. Nothing to see here. No need to worry. After all, these random acts of violence aren’t challenging the very existence of our nation. America is no less safe than it was a week ago. We have it under control. Move on.”

President Obama described the recent police officer ambush in Baton Rouge as an attack upon “the rule of law.” Indeed, it was. Yet, such anarchy is a predictable consequence in a nation whose leaders disrespect “the rule of law” on a regular basis, especially so when that nation is a constitutional republic.

There are so many moving pieces to this election year puzzle. It makes it hard to choose which of several serious issues to address first.

Let’s start with media abuse (on the right and the left) of the role the Senate plays in the confirmation process. According to most of them, the Senate has a duty to confirm whomever a President nominates as long as he is “qualified,” but what does that mean? Last night on Fox News Megyn Kelly labeled Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, as “incredibly qualified,” implying, however, that he would “nevertheless” not likely be confirmed by a Republican Senate because the process has become more about ideology and power politics than “qualifications.”

The life of a lemming, a small rodent of the Arctic region, has become metaphorically linked to a class of people willing to be led to their death by unquestionably following the popular sentiment.

I’m not sure when American freedom began its slow death march – perhaps shortly after it was attained with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. President Reagan is often quoted thusly: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction…It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

You have often heard we are a “nation of laws and not of men.” The words are attributable to John Adams and, while the concept can be found in ancient Greek culture, humankind didn’t take it for a meaningful spin until our Constitution was ratified in 1788. Otherwise known as “The Rule of Law,” it has enjoyed a very good ride, paid for by the lifeblood of over 1.3 million of our military. But, what is it and how much is it worth to us, the beneficiaries of their sacrifice?

The events of May 5, 2010, at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, caused outrage around the nation when three students were disciplined for wearing shirts displaying an American flag on Cinco de Mayo, a day set aside by many to celebrate Mexican heritage. The students sought to remedy what they perceived to be violations of their freedom of speech by filing suit in Federal District Court. They lost. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard their arguments on appeal pitting the duty of public schools to prevent violence against the “rights” of students to express themselves. The outcome is difficult to predict for reasons described, below, but a detour is necessary before taking a look at Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District.

The President’s promise to transform America is one of the few he has kept – perhaps the only one. I don’t like his work product in the least, yet in spite of the known record of the President and the Democratic party leaders (Harry Reid, for example) to foment nonsensical hatred towards constitutional conservatives with descriptions like “anarchists,” “terrorists,” “haters of government,” and the like, I will attempt to avoid pejorative language while explaining the conclusion implicit in my headline.

Yes, I believe I was a target of the Internal Revenue Service. Can I prove it? Only by every trial lawyer’s trusted friend, Mr. Circumstantial Evidence. I mean, I can’t get into the heads of those two loose canons in Cincy. I suppose the only other way to prove it would be to seize the telephone records and e-mails of the United States Treasury Department. Oops! I forgot. Only the head of the Department of “Justice” has that much power. Guess I will have to rely on C.E., after all.